2 Court of Appeal Grounds of Judgment by Raus and Maarop in Zambry v Nizar

The Court of Appeal judgments of Dato’ Md. Raus bin Sharif JCA and Dato’ Ahmad bin Haji Maarop JCA are now available for downloading. Simply click their name to download their respective documents. We expect to publish Datuk Zainun bt Ali JCA’s written grounds as soon as it becomes available.

Tags: , , ,

Life's a sufferance. Lawyering a bore. As Edmund continues various escape techniques to be rid of Lord Bobo’s influence, he crusades with UndiMsia! movers to build strange youth love movements around the country. And so he tweets @edmundbon and practises the black magic art of advocacy at www.BONadvocates.com

Posted on 27 June 2009. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

Read more articles posted by Edmund Bon Tai Soon.

Read this first: LB Terms of Use

17 Responses to 2 Court of Appeal Grounds of Judgment by Raus and Maarop in Zambry v Nizar

  1. Pingback: Loyarburok

  2. Pingback: Loyarburok

  3. Pingback: Loyarburok

  4. Pingback: Gobbledegook and regurgitation galore « Hornbill Unleashed

  5. Pingback: Loyarburok

  6. aca


    where’s the thrid CORRECT.

    gee, after an orgy from commission hearing, semua ok alredi. usual BN kautim and its CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT.

  7. leeandy

    ahh…ahh, correct…corrrrrect

  8. aca


    forget about james foong too. of all the names you mentioned, only Sri Ram has the cojones to stand-up to the UMNOputras to come out with a decision in accordance with the Constitution.

    If judges can make decisions contrary to Section 72 under the Constitution, which is in plain English, lets not waste any more time on appeals. Let the UMNO judges take this country down the road to perdition and let them answer to their Maker.

  9. Whether 9 or 5 judges are empannelled to hear the appeal makes no difference. The important thing is the kind of Judges who should sit on the panel to hear the appeal.

    Zaki is difinitely out. Nizar better pray that Ariffin, Awaluddin, Agustine, and that Makinuddin son who all decided in favor of Umno on the earlier two cases are not on the Panel.

    Actually Nizar don't have much choice. You only have Gopal Sri Ram and James Foong left and hope that the other 3 who makes up the quorum are independent minded judges who owes no one for their judgeship.

    LAWYER Leong should advise Nizar properly. If 9 judges are empannelled and you have the 4 jokers mentioned above in the panel, it won't do your cause any good also. The 4 have demonstrated their judicial inclination in the earlier two cases which NH Chan had heavily criticized. Umno minded judges.

  10. In the Malaysian Court of Appeal judge, the kangaroo judges took 5 minutes to determine the fate of Nizar but, it took more than a month to produce the crap judgements…what a blooming joke!

    Perhaps, these monkey judges should have paid with their buta fat income from their political masters to get a QC from from our previous colonial master's land, to write the judgements separately on their behalf…as least, if they have to twist and spin on the facts of the case, do it intellengtly…oops! what intelligence have these 3 undignified, cheap a#rseholes from our kangaroo courts?

  11. Radha

    Let's wait for retired judge NH Chan to comment

    I am sure it will be quite a reading


    S. Radhakrishnan

  12. mei1

    Malaysiakini reported that “Only five judges to hear final appeal”……

    “No reasons or explanations were given as to the refusal,” said Leong in a statement, adding that the legal team was disappointed and disheartened by the refusal.

    Leong said that Nizar will be advised to consider halting the proceedings pending a written appeal for the Federal Court to enlarge the panel and to state their reasons for refusing their initial requests.

    “This is our client’s last avenue of appeal. If Nizar’s application for leave is dismissed by the five-man bench, this will be the end of the litigation.

    “We therefore, in the interest of justice, fair play and good judicial governance, request that a full bench be empaneled to hear what will, most probably, be our country’s most important constitutional and landmark appeal,” he said.

    What would be the outcome of the above??

  13. aca


    they just have to find some grounds no matter how stupid it is. if there were strong grounds, it wouldnt take them more than 1 month to provide the written judgement. compared to the High Court judge, 4 days were just needed.

    stupid or not stupid, they have done their job well in the eyes of the govt of the day. I wonder if it is PR as the federal govt, how will they rule for similar case?

    Frankly, if I am a foreign investor, I have to think twice before putting my dollars in this country with the judiciary in such shambles.

  14. Toh Woon Lee

    I am eagerly looking forward to read our learned friend NH Chan’s comments on the Court of Appeal judgments.
    After all the comments on the judgments, I wonder whether the
    judges concerned are feeling shameful or not.
    Dear Mr. NH Chan, please give your comments soonest.

  15. aca


    at least, we are better served by a retired but honourable judge. thee’s not too many NH Chan around these days. they are a dying breed and in no time will be non-existent wiped out by a near-dictatorial regime.

  16. Dave

    Just let the raayat of perak to decide who is the rightful MB.. Is as simple as that.Why waste tax payer money???

  17. Can’t read the full judgment of Raus.

    Wish to reiterate that Raus’s interpretation of Art.36(2) is hogwash and plain stupidity. According to him as reported in the press, that article is for MB to request for dissolution when the Assy has concluded its 5 yr term and contemplating a GE.

    This is kindergarten stuff by Ruas, a Malaysian Court of Appeal judge. It shows the standard of our judges. If the Assy has concluded its 5 yr term, then there is no point of asking for a dissolution. It automatically dissolves itself.

    I don’t know whether there is a similar article in the Perak Constitution as found in other States. Under Art. 55(3) of the Fed Consti. it is stated that Parliament, unless sooner dissolved shall continue for 5yrs from the date of 1st meeting, and shall then stand dissolved. When it concluded its 5yr period it is automatically dissolved and you don’t seek a dissolution.

    A dissolution is only sought under that Art. bf the Assy/Parliament had concluded its 5 yr perion. It can range from one day after the sitting and a day bf 5 yrs. On reaching 5 yrs, it automatically dissolves.

    I think even a standard 6 pupil can understand this lah. What a Judge we have.